4 ms·

Yes seeing it as a cache, where the cache key is a transformation of the user request (including requests to "static" pages) is a better model that leads to a u

Yes seeing it as a cache, where the cache key is a transformation of the user request (including requests to "static" pages) is a better model that leads to a unified vision of SSR/SSG

anonymous_sorry 4y ago
I get that you can see it that way. If you were going to use server-side rending (SSR) anyway you can claim that static site generation (SSG) is a special case supported by any SSR framework. Or perhaps even that SSR is a generalisation of SSG to support dynamic content. But it feels like a bit of a stretch. The whole point of SSG is to simplify your architecture and tooling by forgoing the ability to dynamically render content on the server. It is a trade-off that won't be suitable for every application, and that's absolutely fine. If you want to argue that SSR tooling can be so simple and cheap that the SSG trade-off isn't worth it, then I'm keen to learn about that. But to elide the distinction between the two seems unhelpful to me.
- eric-burel 4y ago
  I mean the framework can of course differientiate those use cases clearly, static and dynamic still exist in Next 13 App Router. But making them totally separate is a mistake too. Namely what bothers me is that a few points made in the docs or by users in this comment section show a limited visions of static rendering. It is certainly not limited to generic content that is the same for all users, I've built enough counter-examples to prove it.
  - anonymous_sorry 4y ago
    Why is it a mistake to separate them? If can generate my site as a bunch of static content, upload it to a server, and have it served by nginx or similar, then I don't need to think about the next.js App Router, React, or indeed any custom server-side code. That's what static site generation is for, and it seems rather distinct from what you are talking about. Yes it is limiting, and it won't be appropriate for many use cases. But if you can do it, it makes things simpler, cheaper and more efficient. That's not to say you can't combine SSG tooling with dynamic content too if you need it. But static-only is a perfectly valid choice if you can get away with it.
    - eric-burel 4y ago
      Your answer conflates statically rendering a page (server-side prerendering at build-time), and statically rendering a website (exporting in Next.js terminology). You seem to talk about statically rendering the website while my point is more about statically rendering pages or layouts.

Yes seeing it as a cache, where the cache key is a transformation of the user request (including requests to "static" pages) is a better model that leads to a unified vision of SSR/SSG

anonymous_sorry 4y ago

I get that you can see it that way. If you were going to use server-side rending (SSR) anyway you can claim that static site generation (SSG) is a special case supported by any SSR framework. Or perhaps even that SSR is a generalisation of SSG to support dynamic content. But it feels like a bit of a stretch. The whole point of SSG is to simplify your architecture and tooling by forgoing the ability to dynamically render content on the server. It is a trade-off that won't be suitable for every application, and that's absolutely fine. If you want to argue that SSR tooling can be so simple and cheap that the SSG trade-off isn't worth it, then I'm keen to learn about that. But to elide the distinction between the two seems unhelpful to me.

eric-burel 4y ago
I mean the framework can of course differientiate those use cases clearly, static and dynamic still exist in Next 13 App Router. But making them totally separate is a mistake too. Namely what bothers me is that a few points made in the docs or by users in this comment section show a limited visions of static rendering. It is certainly not limited to generic content that is the same for all users, I've built enough counter-examples to prove it.
- anonymous_sorry 4y ago
  Why is it a mistake to separate them? If can generate my site as a bunch of static content, upload it to a server, and have it served by nginx or similar, then I don't need to think about the next.js App Router, React, or indeed any custom server-side code. That's what static site generation is for, and it seems rather distinct from what you are talking about. Yes it is limiting, and it won't be appropriate for many use cases. But if you can do it, it makes things simpler, cheaper and more efficient. That's not to say you can't combine SSG tooling with dynamic content too if you need it. But static-only is a perfectly valid choice if you can get away with it.
  - eric-burel 4y ago
    Your answer conflates statically rendering a page (server-side prerendering at build-time), and statically rendering a website (exporting in Next.js terminology). You seem to talk about statically rendering the website while my point is more about statically rendering pages or layouts.